critical thought in a world of dogma

Furor Feministae – Female Discourse Culture & How to Survive It

Heh. In recent past the tranquility of this here obscure sphere of the Inter-Webz has been disturbed by numerous imbroglios. Online differences of opinion, concomitant ruckus, faeces flinging monkey antics and the dissonant, emotio-menstrual outpourings of the shrill, shrewish shreek brigade. So. What is new you might ask? Nothing, really. The world is a lobotomized kindergarten of sorts and most of us are little more than crayon eating, barely conscious bipeds shuffling around arbitrarily. So in answer: all crazed on the western front, just as always.

But what I do find interesting is a discourse pattern that has become evermore obvious in recent months: *he* says something less than flattering yet explains the reasons for said calmly, logically, rationally. *She* interprets *his* statement out of *her own* warped and biased perception, made all the worse due to her emotional reality. *She* gets upset. *Her* emotions take over. In response *she* warps the issues, reframes, goes personal, flings faeces ad hominems, plays the victim. In consequence the original debate is derailed and the discourse degenerates into vicious name calling, freak outs, flaming, trolling and all the other good stuff. This is if it’s taking place on a male moderated blog.

What happens on a female blog is arguably a lot worse. You could call it vicious, authoritarian…even crypto-fascistic. The buildup is usually the same (as per this article’s prior paragraph). But once serious dissent is experienced, all too often female egos seem to shatter, the stress becomes too much for the “dearies” and in consequence they do what they always do when cornered: suppress the debate. How do they do this? Simples. By banning all dissenters, censoring / deleting all dissenting comments. Problem solved. And afterwards they can just carry on with their lovely, superficial flufftalk wuvving each other, cuddling and basking in the warm, comforting security and radiance of harmony. Never mind the futility of such “debates”. That’s an evil thought. Just something those bad, baaad penis wielders say. What are you, anyways, a woman hater?

Recent examples abound. One of the most prominent examples was the S*it Storm unleashed after Dalrock analyzed Susan Walsh’s misguided and polemic sentiment that “…frivolous divorces were overstated in the Manosphere echo chamber.” He went on to write an excellent followup of her hyperbolic and emotional response to his op. Witness also the massive, thermonuclear freakout of some rather hypocritical and shallow christian wiminz after their postings (on a public forum) were scrutinized in detail. The best example, imo, is what happened to Rollo Tomasi on HUS. He is well known for his excellent and calmly detached analyses of female nature and the dynamics of intersex relations. His writings even prompted the article in question (on HUS). Yet when he tried to rationally explain his position via comments he was soon suppressed by Susan Walsh who was foaming out of the mouth. His comments were censored and he evicted. He subsequently wrote an article about this episode on his own blog. Finally, just like Doug1 and Rmaxd, I myself have also been recently banned at HUS for disagreeing with the Fuhrer and Reichskanzlerbeloved leader Susan Walsh too markedly. Heh.

So what’s going on here? I’d say: an old, ooold truth. Women may be good at manipulation and pulling strings but they are – for the most part – rather bad at debate. This is partly because of biology (i.e. the female brain is more affected by emotions than the male brain and less able to separate emotional and rational discourse) but mostly because they are, quite literally, the weaker sex. They are only seldomly able to deal effectively with flak. As soon as things get less than pleasant (as they often do in a heated debate) and people (men) start to speak their minds in a blunt, unpolished, unperfumed fashion, women get upset. There is of course the rare exception. *Some* women *do* manage to keep calm and carry on. Just like *some* men behave just like your average woman (we call them ‘manginas’). But that is beside the point. Most women *don’t* manage. And when their emotions assume command you can rest assured that their irrational reaction will do the original discourse – whatever it was – griveous harm. They will try to derail and once they start playing the victim (as they always do) you can also be sure that some ‘White Knight’ / mangina will come rushing to their aid. This compulsion to rescue a “damsel in distress” might just be the worst instinct we men have at present.

M’kaaaay…what can be done?

1.) Know your foe. Education is your friend. Using logic and rational, argument-based appeals with women is pointless, counterproductive & doomed to failure. So don’t use logic. Logic is misogynist. Try to instill helpful emotions onto the woman. Know that women are like oversized emotional overhead projectors. Describing emotions leads the woman to *experience* these emotions (thank you Ross Jeffries). Use their emotional menstruation to your advantage rather than banging your head against the brick wall of their ‘blind spot’ blinders.

2.) Conserve your energy. Know which battles to fight, when to stand firm, when to evade, retreat and flee…to live another day, to fight another battle. We live in problematic times. I’ve christened this present era…the ‘Age of Rage’. I find this tag rather fitting. And things will just get worse from now on. Intersex alienation *will* get more severe. Count on it. So, imo, I would try to avoid discussions with women most of the time. Try to turn things around playfully, your sanity will thank you. Fight only in the rarest of circumstances and only when it is direly neccessary. When you fight apply overwhelming force to a clearly outlined area to maximize effect. Know that discussion, debate, arguments, logic…all of that…will be increasingly outlawed. These are male concepts. In our world male = bad. They will go, count on it. The plastic-fake, hypocritical, self-deluding “discourse” culture of Susan Walsh is the West’s zeitgeist. Her reality is the only reality that counts in our sick, demented societies.

3.) GYOW / try to create male only spheres. A no brainer. Obviously, men will remain men whatever comes. Discuss things with them. Broaden your horizon and learn from men. This is as it always has been and always will be. Men are the drivers of society, the creators of civilization, the builders of wealth, the protagonists of progress, the innovators of industry. As long as we as men can talk amongst ourselves in our own groups we will advance. We will learn new things. Ultimately, we will find a solution to this nightmarish cesspit the West has degenerated into. Remember, however, to keep women out. They have their own spheres, ever more of them. They cannot and will not comprehend the male experience. For obvious reasons (explained above) they will change the paradigms of our discourse as soon as they participate. As such they are a corrupting force.

Above all, remember that women are not men. Some men may eventually mature. Most women never will.

Thank you. And I appreciate how hard things must be for you, as one of those rare women being able to transcend emotional limitations. Essentially, you are sitting between two chairs here…and both chairs are slowly but surely moving in opposite directions.

And the way I see it, gender polarization is just going to get more and more extreme. Not a pleasant thought.

That said, do you have any recommendations to get through to the other side? As in get them to comprehend the situation? Cause…imo….we have a catastrophic situation where women have convinced they can do all that men can do. But they of course can’t. For any subsequent failures they have their scapegoat “Patriarchy” to reassure themselves (which we have learned they prefer to having to face hard truths).

So how do we make somebody engage with reality that prefers lies and delusion? How do we defeat the hamster? Any way I look at it…it seems rather impossible.

Usually I don’t even try. I’ve never understood how the female mind works, and I’ve been a bit of an “outsider” all my life. If I make a logical point to an older woman, she Invariably either nods and blinks (the polite ones) or goes cuckoo. It usually ends with her saying, “Well. If that’s how you see it…” However, I live in an ideologically divided community. My town is deeply conservative, full of devout fundamentalist Christians, but economically anchored by a liberal university (they tried to fire a professor for admitting to her students that she was a Christian.)

I HAVE noticed, though, that some of my son’s female friends are fairly receptive. I don’t want to short out anyone’s brains, so I don’t push all that hard, but these girls are seeing a future of uncertainty. These kids were in grade school on September 11. They have grown up seeing extremely contradictory political messages as the norm. They’re not stupid; they know change is coming, because they know the current system is not sustainable. When I tell them, “Don’t try to do it the old way, it’s not going to work,” a few of them listen.

U: Interesting. You quite possibly might be on to something here. I myself have mostly dealt with 25-30 year olds. If change is happening it would be very reassuring to me. Anything to bring the West back on a course towards sanity.

I honestly believe that there IS NO GETTING THROUGH to most women over 25. They’re too deeply brainwashed. There are a few like me, who have known all along that something was “off,” and couldn’t quite figure out what it was, but we don’t have a lot of female friends. They think we’re weird. I’m pretty sure the only thing that will wake women up is being rejected by men, one at a time. That or being raised by men, and only seeing their mothers 2 weekends a month.

U: Amen with regards to the generation above 25. Those are the gals I’ve chiefly been butting heads with in my adolescence. Oh and I can understand. If most women’s values are primarily derived from their peer group they’d obviously not listen to you. You are just one woman, an excentric outlyer in their eyes. What you say is irrelevant because it wasn’t posted on Cosmo or voiced by Oprah. I fear that’s the gist of it.

I do have to say, Umslo: I agree with your three point plan of action here.

A man in a relationship with a woman should not try to use logic and talking through the problems. That’s not going to serve a man well. He’s better off simply working to improve her feelings about him, rather than trying to help her make logical sense of it all.

Absolutely. No question about it. The problem is, however, the implementation of said. I believe we men have an unfortunate tendency to project our rationality on others. We tend to want to believe men and women are similar beings when in actual fact we are very different, speaking different “languages”.

Our perception is altogether alien to the majority of women, as their’s is to us. In this light the writings of Ross Jeffries would seem rather useful. Specifically NLP and how to use it on women. The problem…for me…is chiefly overcoming my own inhibition in this manner. When using Jeffries approach I oftentimes felt totally weird, uncomfortable, out of whack.

As to its effectiveness I cannot fully judge. It did (does) seem promising to me, though. Far more effective than logic in any case.

When the subject is emotional and threatening to a woman’s comfort, all the logic mechanics cause them hurt. From her eyes it’s like a malevolous machine of pain that intends to force her where she doesnt want to go or reach her where she doesnt want to be reached. The fact that it’s done in a calm, structured way only makes it more threatening. It makes the visceral response stronger.

I have witnessed it many times and came to the same conclusion, it makes no sense to debate logically when the issue is emotional. It’s a shame. This is only a real problem, though, when the woman with the issue is also in charge of the situation.

When the male is in charge of the situation, then there’s no need to argue logically or, “force” debate. If the issue is too emotional for her at the moment, she can retreat and heal or do whatever she wants while the male keeps driving / keeps unreactive. Then that aloofness and the lack of chasing on his part might reverse the emotional scenario for her. And she might want to build a bridge, because no matter what, the driver / the guy in command is attractive, and she’ll want a part of that.

I learned that whenever I find myself wanting “debate” with a woman who’s turning emotional about it, we’re always assuming the roles of the self-centered ex girlfriend and rejected and hurt ex boyfriend, or the chaser and the chased, or the pretty virgin and the unwanted freak – that’s their frame -, or, simply put, that Im transferring power to them.

This transfer or power, which is just taking the other person’s position, needs and views and trying to mold an unified reality that considers all views and reach a consensus = that seems to be a male skill. There cant be a debate or concensus while in mud fight mode. So Im avoiding all of it.

“When the subject is emotional and threatening to a woman’s comfort, all the logic mechanics cause them hurt. From her eyes it’s like a malevolous machine of pain that intends to force her where she doesnt want to go or reach her where she doesnt want to be reached. The fact that it’s done in a calm, structured way only makes it more threatening. It makes the visceral response stronger.”

Quite so. Her becoming emotional makes it difficult to engage in rational debate and his continued rational frame then just further destabilizes her because it compells her to operate outside of her comfort zone (logic during distress).

In a better world, where sex differences were accepted, even celebrated, all these issues could be easily dealt with…to the satisfaction of both sexes.

“When the male is in charge of the situation, then there’s no need to argue logically or, “force” debate. If the issue is too emotional for her at the moment, she can retreat and heal or do whatever she wants while the male keeps driving / keeps unreactive. Then that aloofness and the lack of chasing on his part might reverse the emotional scenario for her. And she might want to build a bridge, because no matter what, the driver / the guy in command is attractive, and she’ll want a part of that.”

Heh.

True in theory. But the problem of course is…the system puts *her* in command by default. Our feminist societies celebrate women assuming leadership roles. Men not so much. Men in leadership roles are easily seen as oppressive, patriarchal troglodytes. Add to that her and your education: she has been told men and women are essentially the same. So have you. She thus believes she can do all these things just as well as you can. Gender is merely a construct, men are not better at logic or debate. What a seeeeeexist claim! So we have a Catch 22 situation. *If* you were in command quite possibly you could defuse things. *If* you were aware about the significant intersex differences quite possibly you’d not use logic on your SO. But you’re not in command, she is. And you have all the wrong convictions regarding this topic as does she (due to a lifetime of feminist brainwashing).

So what happens? You as the male try to be “progressive” and defer to her leadership – something she secretly hates. Somebody has also told you you should “express your feelings” and “talk about the issues”. Heh. So that is what you do. And she does her shtick. She deludedly dances around the elusive quagmire of logic while you – as the male – shoot yourself in the foot due to your conditioned inhibitions vis a vis assuming command.

Hmmm. Sounds to me we have the machinations and dynamics of many a failed relationship right here, out in the open. Oh and by the way: with “you” I don’t mean you specifically, obviously. But rather the generic “you”, as in a hypothetical male.

“I learned that whenever I find myself wanting “debate” with a woman who’s turning emotional about it, we’re always assuming the roles of the self-centered ex girlfriend and rejected and hurt ex boyfriend, or the chaser and the chased, or the pretty virgin and the unwanted freak – that’s their frame -, or, simply put, that Im transferring power to them.

This transfer or power, which is just taking the other person’s position, needs and views and trying to mold an unified reality that considers all views and reach a consensus = that seems to be a male skill. There cant be a debate or concensus while in mud fight mode. So Im avoiding all of it.

Like you said, good for my mind health.””

Interesting.
So if I understand you correctly you mean “debating” (i.e. wanting to hear her perspective) entails a transfer of power that is unproblematic in the case of men (because men are seekers of truth and concensus) but highly problematic in the case of women (because the relationship dynamic shifts and suddenly she is the prize)?

Might be. Aye. Avoiding debates, I think, is the default solution. Of course that is easily said, doing it is far more difficult. But we be mortals. We live we learn…at least sometimes.

Yeah bro. Debate and logic seems to be a male thing, a protective mechanism to operate the tool without self identifying – emotions get pushed down, utility get’s pushed up.

For women it’s the opposite, emotions up, utility down.

U: Good stuff! So we can surmise when women “debate” what they’re really doing is connecting emotionally, reassuring and comforting each other. A dance of lies, flattery and hamster fodder. No wonder cads are effective. Cads never debate in the masculine sense.

Conversely, when men debate they are merely continuing competition / combat by different means. In a Clausewitzian sense it’s mental sword fighting and at the same time in a functional sense it is the search for solutions. Which is probably why men invent stuff and women don’t.

So whenever you engage in debate with a woman it’s about gender dynamics only. If she wants to engage, it is because it IS a personal matter to her. That means the subject is HER. She’s invested. Emotionally. Emotions is what she’s got.

Forget about “reasoning” about green cars efficiency or lack of thereof. The proper argument is, how do green cars make me look? smart of stupid?

Ideas are like props for their avatar.

U: Outstanding! Ideas are like props for their avatar. Yes. It makes sense. They are selfreferencing. As such only issues, topics, information that has a relevance to their lives is interesting. Vague, abstract stuff like history, economics or technical guff…in most cases has no direct bearing for the woman’s life. As such it is no interest to her.

If you tackle on the ideas, it’s like removing stuff from her insides, or putting stuff in. That can work in your favor (getting her naked, putting it in). But “debate” means discomfort. Women are bad at handling it.

U: Indeed. And I guess a woman first perceives the tone before the content. Mayhap, if she doesn’t like the general tone she won’t bother with the content…she will already have emotionally reacted to the tone itself. This here is quite a fruitful session today.

So then Yohami, do you find yourself just avoiding conflicts with women all together, trying to communicate more with the emotions that they are actually able to listen to rather than reason/logic, or simply standing unaffected after stating your thoughts/opinions?

I’m simply trying to figure out how the fuck to interact with Western Women these days. Every time I go out to try and have a good time with them I end up going back to what we discussed once of being good at stating “here I am” and bad at adding the parts to make it the “here I am, now come play in my world”

Umslop,
Just to add to this and further frame that she’s crazy – Aunt Susan banned me for a couple days for a short comment made on Vox’s site that neither she nor her daughter understand game.

She’s decided she’s the shining beacon of light on the internet that must protect the masses from the evil cads lurking in the corners, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting sluts and carousel riders and use them like they want to be used.

In otherwords – she’s become everything I detest about the US government.

Wow. Just wow. Banning me didn’t come as a surprise. I half expected it. After all I was never particularily polite or respectful to her. But you…you went to great lengths to phrase things the right way. And banning you because of something you said somewhere else? That’s just far out. I should give her credit: she’d have made a decent commissar back in the USSR of auld.

“Sure there is freedom of expression. Express all you like. Nobody is censoring you, don’t be paranoid. We are your friends. We are merely concerned you might expressing the wrong opinion. That now…would be dangerous. Oh…by the way your opinion has already been logged, the authorities notified. What you don’t know anything about a trial? Really? Clearly, you are guilty. Why else would we accuse you? You want to know what you’re accused of? Stop playing games. You know all the terrible things you did. And we know you know. Now be a good boy and step right over there where the bus is waiting. Next stop: Archipel Gulag.”

Mike wrote an outstanding comment as to the reasons of her behavior over at Rollo’s den:

As to the ban…. I was fairly stunned at the time myself. I still had a decently high value of the comments section of HUS, so I wrote some emails, explained my position without ever really apologizing, and got unbanned.

She’s definitely acting like a communist state “I must protect the people from all these forms of dissent and rational opinion! They’re safer in their cages!”

“She’s decided she’s the shining beacon of light on the internet that must protect the masses from the evil cads lurking in the corners”

I don’t have a lot of investment either way in most of the changes Susan has made to the oeuvre at HUS, but this particular point is one I find irksome. I’ve told her several times to stop arguing with and reacting to the hardcore MRA element that lurks at her site, as it baits her into saying and doing things that are regrettable, but her response appears to be that she feels the need to actively oppose certain viewpoints for the good of her readers, so they can see her f!ght!ng teh p0wer. Another problem with this outlook is that she comes down angrily on allies of hers (like you and me) who she feels might veer away from her core message. I myself was never banned, but she made a totally out of line inference and blasted me in public comments that I was advocating hardcore asshole game (which is not true). I firmly bumped back that her take on the situation was erroneous, but she replied with more invective, at which point i felt it best to step away from that community. Honestly, it’s a sad commentary on her emotional flywheel if one of her closest blogging allies was subject to instant and prejudicial shaming in public. I thought I had built up a lot more loyalty and benefit of the doubt than she showed.

In other words, she’s seeing MRA/dark-game bogeymen everywhere. Mike C was right that there’s been a strange trend of game denialism over there lately, after she had spent two years advocating that men “learn game” , and I think she’s become paranoid that the guys she sees in her daughter’s life who she thinks should be “boyfriend material” – beta guys ignored during college years – are shying away from commitment and going for the independent lifestyle. I think this scares her, and it has caused her to turn away from game truths because she sees game as empowering young men to not commit to women. It’s the same thing with her “slut shaming” kick, even as she writes posts about slutty women she knows IRL, but who she always identifies as “troubled” or “just putting out to try to get a boyfriend” and not as real sluts.

Yeah. I’ve tried following the comments over there a couple times the last two weeks. Either they’re boring topics, have an echo chamber feel to them (where I know I’d get shouted down), or my mind simply melts after going through some of the gymnastics of staying with people’s logic.

Mostly, its simply not a place that is entertaining or inspires growth/thoughts in me any more. I need to find a new one.

„And afterwards they can just carry on with their lovely, superficial flufftalk wuvving each other, cuddling and basking in the warm, comforting security and radiance of harmony.”

You tell me! Out of mere curiosity I checked out the comments to a recent post on HUS entitled ‘Which Comes First – Promiscuous or Crazy?’. Again her regular commenters are repeating their tired old nonsense: ‘men are hypergamous too, they only notice the prettiest girls’, ‘betas don’t try to get girlfriends, they just wish to sleep around like the alphas’ etc. even though male commenters have patiently explained to them numerous times before that they’re wrong. It’s no use. Might as well throw peas against the wall.

And whenever Ms. Walsh is confronted with a tough question about female behavior, she gives canned responses. ’It’s biology’. Nevermind that the lives of even average Western people are light years away from their natural state of existence and that male behavior is never explained away like that. ’Women always assume the greater risk when having sex’. This is nothing but a cop-out and a lie considering false rape accusations, claims of sexual harassment, women routinely pulling the ’let’s you and him fight’ tactic and the complete removal of the natural constraints on female sexuality.

„And things will just get worse from now on. Intersex alienation *will* get more severe. Count on it.”

I’d say that alienation has been and will be constant. Male and female desires are disparate, regardless of social environment. And I’m not sure about male-female relations getting worse in the future. As patriarchal indoctrination disappears, old feminists and white knights die off and Game spreads, young men and women will have fewer and fewer illusions about each other. Plus more and more men (and even women) will opt out of the SMP. There’ll be less interaction that might lead to conflict in the first place.

„GYOW / try to create male only spheres. A no brainer.”

Of course it is. Men traditionally had their separate all-male places in every society. That they’re considered an abomination today says a lot about our current environment.

„Ultimately, we will find a solution to this nightmarish cesspit the West has degenerated into.”

“You tell me! Out of mere curiosity I checked out the comments to a recent post on HUS entitled ‘Which Comes First – Promiscuous or Crazy?’. Again her regular commenters are repeating their tired old nonsense: ‘men are hypergamous too, they only notice the prettiest girls’, ‘betas don’t try to get girlfriends, they just wish to sleep around like the alphas’ etc. even though male commenters have patiently explained to them numerous times before that they’re wrong. It’s no use. Might as well throw peas against the wall.

And whenever Ms. Walsh is confronted with a tough question about female behavior, she gives canned responses. ’It’s biology’. Nevermind that the lives of even average Western people are light years away from their natural state of existence and that male behavior is never explained away like that. ’Women always assume the greater risk when having sex’. This is nothing but a cop-out and a lie considering false rape accusations, claims of sexual harassment, women routinely pulling the ’let’s you and him fight’ tactic and the complete removal of the natural constraints on female sexuality.”

Heh.

Yes it is. a cop out and a rather transparent one at that. But like you yourself (and others) have so aptly analyzed over at Rollo’s den….she’s trying to jump on the ‘Bollick Bandwagon’, the juicy gravy train to celebrity ville. So at this point the truth has become rather inconvenient for the divine Empress of HUS, Susan Walsh. She needs to reframe the entire debate so as to make it conform to mainstream beliefs. And, anyways, truth is smooth. As for the men. Well, if some men are forced to dance on razors so what? They’re big guys. They should stop whining and ‘man up‘, heh.

“’d say that alienation has been and will be constant. Male and female desires are disparate, regardless of social environment. And I’m not sure about male-female relations getting worse in the future. As patriarchal indoctrination disappears, old feminists and white knights die off and Game spreads, young men and women will have fewer and fewer illusions about each other. Plus more and more men (and even women) will opt out of the SMP. There’ll be less interaction that might lead to conflict in the first place.”

I’m not so sure about that. I agree that we will see increasing Gender Apartheid. Basically more and more ‘women only’ spheres (I can even imagine signs on beaches “only women allowed” just like in Apartheid South Africa). I also agree that men will harbor less illusions about the nature of women etc. So less anger on that level, agreed.

However, imo the (still) increasing cultural demonisation and villification of men will lead to ever more extreme male reactions. Simultaneously, the political and economic marginalisation of males will additionally cause rapidly rising resentment, especially if women are at the same time lauded and pedestalized in the media and privileged (via AA etc.) in the political and economic sphere. Moreover, as has oftentimes been discussed already, men growing up in single mother “families” and lacking a father figure more often than not have all kinds of social pathologies. In a ‘Rancid’ sense they are walking ‘Time Bombs’. This all…combined…bodes rather badly imo.

Furthermore the very nature of our present sexual regime (i.e. sexual darwinism as in survival of the fittest) leads to polarization. Some few haves (Alphas, cads) and a great mass of have nots (Betas, Omegas etc.). Do you honestly believe largescale sexual deprivation *won’t* lead to massive problems in the not so distant future? “No pussy – no peace” is the writing on the wall.

Oh and by the way, let’s not forget these direly problematic dynamics will be *increased* if and when western economies / societies start to systematically fail. Imagine a society where due to systematic and longterm misandry misogyny has become a reality. Imagine a society where most men and women hate each other. Imagine, then, economic collapse and all its ramifications: not enough wealth/food for all, no more collaboration, no families, anarchy, no more police, roaming bands of feral males etc.

I’d say such a future would resemble a perfect tempest of sorts. A ‘Clockwork Orange’ / ‘Mad Max’ kind of reality…only worse.

Which is why we *need* to find a solution. We’re in a race to end the ‘War of the Sexes’ before everything falls apart. It’s a difficult task because most people staunchly reject the notion of a war going on. Most people exist in illusions, 100% plastic. Those people that are able to perceive this war…for the most part…believe in more of the toxic poison (feminism) that has brought us to this abyss in the first place.

And many men for their part say: Let it all burn to ashes, let it all fall apart.
One thing is for certain, imo: If this war is lost…ultimately the greatest losers will be women, not men.

Another thing we shouldn’t forget is that the reason Game proponents showed up on HUS in the first place (later followed by MRAs and anti-feminist men in general) is that Walsh decided to start a silly online feud with IMF and Roissy back in 2009 which I’m sure she didn’t think through. She can only blame herself for the long-term consequences, ’Dalrockgate’ included.

„Some few haves (Alphas, cads) and a great mass of have nots (Betas, Omegas etc.). Do you honestly believe largescale sexual deprivation *won’t* lead to massive problems in the not so distant future?”

In my estimation the main problem with the exclusion of betas and omegas from the SMP, and increasingly from the MMP as well, is not the threat of them becoming violent, misogynistic, antisocial rebels. That’s just the sort of red herring feminists like to invent and WANT to believe in. It simply isn’t supported by proof, rare spree killers like Sodini and that Cho guy notwithstanding. Betas are normally docile and peaceful unless threatened with death or some similarly dramatic event.

From society’s perspective, the main problem with men without sexual access is ironically the same as the one with men with easy sexual access – they don’t invest in women because they have no incentives to do so. When men adhere to social norms, they normally do so only because they invest in women in one way or another, usually by marrying them and starting a family. And when someone refuses to adhere to social norms, he won’t do anything to uphold the social order. This can have enormous repercussions because men are traditionally the gatekeepers to security and commitment, much in the same way women are the gatekeepers of sex. A small majority of men have always been willing to victimize women. When the majority of betas fail to keep them at bay through their white-knighting chivalrous ways, things get ugly fast.

„We’re in a race to end the ‘War of the Sexes’ before everything falls apart. It’s a difficult task because most people staunchly reject the notion of a war going on.”

Maybe because there isn’t one? I never believed in this notion of a gender war. It never happened, because one side (men) laid down its weapons and never even showed up on the battlefield. Besides, what would be gender peace? Was there ever such a thing?

But yes, most people don’t seem to realize the sheer enormity of the problems plaguing current male-female relations. The Manosphere is only reaching a small majority of men. Many people bitch about the opposite sex from time to time but leave it at that. Lambs to the slaughter, really.

Otherwise I agree with you.

U: I’ve responded to your comment below in a new comment seeing as for technical reasons wordpress somehow doesn’t allow me to respond to comments that are themself responses. It’s weird.

They are selfreferencing. As such only issues, topics, information that has a relevance to their lives is interesting. Vague, abstract stuff like history, economics or technical guff…in most cases has no direct bearing for the woman’s life. As such it is no interest to her.

I think this may be a product of what we are meant to do with our lives. Caring for a family, raising children, keeping a house, these things are in the here and now and are (well, used to be, anyway), frankly a full time job. There was not time for anything else and these things would take all of a woman’s focus. Doing these things would give the man time to go out and do what he needed to do to make the resources to provide. Debate would be needed to plan a way to provide these resources, I would think.

Something else to consider, when you do meet a woman who is interested in “history, economics, technical stuff” often times she will want to discuss these things with you to impress you. Women inherently know that it is looks that draw a man in, but (at least in a LTR) we want to be more than just looks to you. We will try to use certain knowledge to impress you so that you may show more interest in just our looks. Again, this has direct bearing for woman, as you say. However, don’t take it the wrong way. It makes us feel good if we are able to impress you. If we can give you something else to admire beyond our looks, not only might you stick around, but, for a woman who cares to be pleasing, we can give you more of what might make you happy in being with us.

In short, it is another way to be pleasing for our man. Unfortunately, this seems to be more of a lost art these days.

“I think this may be a product of what we are meant to do with our lives. Caring for a family, raising children, keeping a house, these things are in the here and now and are (well, used to be, anyway), frankly a full time job. There was not time for anything else and these things would take all of a woman’s focus. Doing these things would give the man time to go out and do what he needed to do to make the resources to provide. Debate would be needed to plan a way to provide these resources, I would think.”

Yes that makes sense…in an evolutionary sense. Due to inherent gender roles women never had to look at the ‘big picture’. Effectively shielded from the outside world they could exist in the cave / camp in their own reality, i.e. they themselves, family and their man. The only important issues would thus be what other women / men were doing (gossip), how to manage kids / family (health, family), how to land that strapping chief of the tribe (sexuality) and how to pull his strings (psychology).

Funnily enough…these are the topics I’ve had most success with, talking to women. Psychology for one…is a field that interests me…and also them. I have engaged in quite a few debates there. The only problem is: In my experience women tend to prefer to ‘zap’ through topics. That is…talk about them for a while but never delve really all that deep. Instead, zap to the next topic.

“Something else to consider, when you do meet a woman who is interested in “history, economics, technical stuff” often times she will want to discuss these things with you to impress you. Women inherently know that it is looks that draw a man in, but (at least in a LTR) we want to be more than just looks to you.”

Heh, quite so. However, that is usually rather transparent to me. With some experience, spotting lukewarm interest becomes rather easy.

“Another thing we shouldn’t forget is that the reason Game proponents showed up on HUS in the first place (later followed by MRAs and anti-feminist men in general) is that Walsh decided to start a silly online feud with IMF and Roissy back in 2009 which I’m sure she didn’t think through. She can only blame herself for the long-term consequences, ’Dalrockgate’ included.”

“In my estimation the main problem with the exclusion of betas and omegas from the SMP, and increasingly from the MMP as well, is not the threat of them becoming violent, misogynistic, antisocial rebels. That’s just the sort of red herring feminists like to invent and WANT to believe in. It simply isn’t supported by proof, rare spree killers like Sodini and that Cho guy notwithstanding. Betas are normally docile and peaceful unless threatened with death or some similarly dramatic event.”

Oh I’m not saying the *majority of these disenfranchized males will react in the way I depicted earlier. I concur with you in that…most betas and omegas will simply disengage, gtow and become ghosts. But even if, say, 80% remain peaceful what of the *minority* of males who will go massive and turn violent?

All it needs for a pretty bleak ‘Mad Max’ kind of dystopia is a minority of angry, violent, feral men….and a majority of men who simply don’t care one way or the other, because they are no longer invested in society. And 20% feral men would still translate into literally millions of violent dudes having nothing to lose, banding together into packs and engaging in crime etc.

You say it yourself in the following paragraph:

“From society’s perspective, the main problem with men without sexual access is ironically the same as the one with men with easy sexual access – they don’t invest in women because they have no incentives to do so. When men adhere to social norms, they normally do so only because they invest in women in one way or another, usually by marrying them and starting a family. And when someone refuses to adhere to social norms, he won’t do anything to uphold the social order. This can have enormous repercussions because men are traditionally the gatekeepers to security and commitment, much in the same way women are the gatekeepers of sex. A small majority of men have always been willing to victimize women. When the majority of betas fail to keep them at bay through their white-knighting chivalrous ways, things get ugly fast.”

Just like economic and political disenfranchisement…sexual starvation will lead to resignation and MGTOW in *most* cases. But a minority, I fear, will turn rabid here as well. Which in turn might create a vicious circle with “rape culture” finally actually becoming reality and feminists responding with “Seeeee! We told you so!”. Never mind cause and effect.

“Maybe because there isn’t one? I never believed in this notion of a gender war. It never happened, because one side (men) laid down its weapons and never even showed up on the battlefield. Besides, what would be gender peace? Was there ever such a thing?”

Mmmh. Well I for one believe it is quite real. Just because men – by and large – haven’t shown up on the battlefield thus far and have just stoically accepted the beatings doesn’t mean there was no war. There was. Only rather onesided. We are like the Red Army. It, too, was ordered (in 1941) not to respond to “provocations” by the Wehrmacht. Thus it initially was confused and unable to muster an effective defense. In consequence it got massively pummelled….for the first 18 months. As for us…I’d say we are somewhere near the autumn of 1942, fighting for our lives. But Stalingrad is not far away…

As for peace…that now will be tricky. It will depend on many factors. For instance…will we as the MRM ever achieve a clear structure, widespread authority and the ability to represent the interests of men in the West? If so *we* might be the ones to finally negotiate a peace. And what are our goals? I have thought about this some and personally would be okayish with a ‘Status Quo Ante‘ peace. As in recreate a robust patriarchy, functioning families and all that. But I’m quite sure many different men have many different positions on that.

grerp made the comment a while back on Dalrok’s blog that the time for the NSDAP Germans to say “Oops! Sorry! Didn’t mean it” was not in April of 1945, but more sometime in the fall of 1941.

IMO we are at or soon will be in a Stalingrad situation. Women will have won about all they are going to get. PUA’s will burrow in the sewers under anything like “lines”, some other men will GTOW up onto Mamiev Kurgan in order to see farther, and a lot of men will just hunker down in a cellar.

Here is the question: in the deep winter months of 1942-early 1943, as far as the ordinary Russian, Ivan Ivanovich was concerned, the only friends he had were the men to his right and left that he could see, and his Nagant. There’s nothing else in the world he can rely on but his comrades and his rifle. What kind of mercy do you suppose he was willing to give to anyone in a grey uniform? And that’s just Ivan, the draftee.

How about his cousin, Ivan Grozny – the one who volunteered for assault Guards infantry, and who now rides on the back of a T-34 tank with ten other men just like him? They only things Ivan Grozny cares about are the tank he’s riding on, his comrades, his PPSh submachinegun and his bag of grenades. What’s his attitude looking like? How does he view anyone in a grey uniform?

Take that analogy and work it into 21st century Western-civ-land.
Feminism as it stands is a parasite. As the host gradually weakens, the demands will only become louder. At some point, the host can’t continue to feed the parasite. Then the parasite either finds a new host, or it dies. There is no other host in the US for feminism – absent AA, set asides, special rules for girls in schools, special rules for women, an entire legal structure devoted to prop them up so they can play at being “strong” and “independent”, femininism collapses.

A single mother begging in the street for food with her children elicits sympathy from Boomers and X’rs, but millennials who grew up with a mother just like that may just walk right on by, possibly snarling “Get a job!” at her on the way.

The price of treating beta men like shit is pretty simple: since they are the men who make civilization work, if they are pushed into a corner, and they stop working beyond their own needs, civilization begins to crumble. Too many of teh wimmenz just do not get that.

“Then the parasite either finds a new host, or it dies. There is no other host in the US for feminism.”

Exactly. Nor, for that matter, is there any host other than the West at large. Imo, feminism can’t really function properly (as in unleash its poisonous and corrupting force) without the welfare state. And besides the West I don’t see any other country adopting welfare handouts any time soon. Certainly not in Asia (China etc.). Asian values, imo, centrally conflict with the idea of welfare handouts.

Any welfare system necessarily entails an entitlement mentality (stemming from a tradition of individual rights). This is simply diametrically opposed to what Asian values stand for: a sacrifice mentality stemming from an essentially collectivist culture with a tradition of duties.

“The price of treating beta men like shit is pretty simple: since they are the men who make civilization work, if they are pushed into a corner, and they stop working beyond their own needs, civilization begins to crumble. Too many of teh wimmenz just do not get that.”

Very true. Alphas don’t care about civilisation because they get sexed with or without functioning systems. It has always been betas that were the backbone of civilisation. Inventers, builders, healers etc. Betas. This is going to be one lesson of the unfolding demise of the West: you denigrate beta men at your own peril. To do so is to engage in cultural suicide.

Oh and I believe many women don’t get this, i.e. connect cause and effect, because of their very discourse nature.

In this here article we’ve concluded they react primarily to the (emotional) tone of the message, rather than its content. So the subcommunicated emotional “tone” drowns out everything else (i.e. the actual message). Worse, they respond emotionally to the subcom emotion of the original stimulus (see Ashley’s perfect illustration of this “you are all misogynists!”).

It’s as if many of them cannot detach themselves long enough these emotions to engage in the actual content. Or maybe they don’t perceive the content at all? Or don’t want to perceive it? And then just surf the emotional “frequency” and respond to that…

She couldn’t possibly accept them because she, like most women, failed to even notice them in the first place. I won’t post links because those tend to make comments get stuck in moderation. Ms. Walsh wrote a rather poorly though out diatribe entitled ’Stop putting out for the alpha asshats’, IMF responded with an excellent two-part post entitled ’The disease is in your genes’. You can find them in the blog archives.

We should keep in mind that Ms Walsh is an old woman with a sheltered life, with predictable prejudices that make her a slow learner. As late as 2010, she wrote a ’man up!’-type post which could’ve been written by Kay Hymowitz or Bennett (search for ’wygant’ in her archive).

“We should keep in mind that Ms Walsh is an old woman with a sheltered life, with predictable prejudices that make her a slow learner. As late as 2010, she wrote a ’man up!’-type post which could’ve been written by Kay Hymowitz or Bennett (search for ’wygant’ in her archive).”

Jupper. In the end Susan is just another boomer, part of the great, grand majestic generation of fail. A generation that was pampered like no other generation before it yet still (because of that?) managed to eff things up terminally. Nobody phrases it better than Thomas Sowell:

“Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area – crime, education, housing, race relations – the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.”
~Thomas Sowell

Ms. Walsh is an aging, menopausal, 2nd stage feminist. She rode the carousel to a certain degree and got away with it. She got a Wharton MBA likely through EEO/AA as much as anything else (not that a Wharton MBA means any ability to think at all ). Now she’s decided she wants grandchildren, and she’s also decided that younger women should be able to ride a Carousel Lite as she did and still get married.

She’s learned, rather slowly, a handful of things about men. Because she’s a boomer and a 2nd stage feminist with a very high opinion of her own intelligence, it is extremely difficult to actually teach her anything at all. In my experience, women who babble about their own smarts and logic are more clueless than their sisters who don’t put on such airs. I point to the entire thread of frivolous divorce as Exhibit A: Walsh’s replies were a catalog of logical fallacies, with ever more emotion added.

Don’t be surprised if she gets a ghost writer to help her put some articles into mainstream media sources or even a book, based on HUS postings. I’m certain it would sell at least as well as “The Rules”.

I think her main problem is an unwillingness to accept the ugly truth of female nature. She’s still dancing around the concept of hypergamy, resisting to fully accept its dire consequences.

Afaik, Deti has patiently tried to explain it to her, in a most succinct and excellent fashion, sadly to no avail.

But in the end mayhap it’s all for the good: if she doesn’t want to deal with reality, the better for us. Now we know more about her and her agenda…so we can get back to our own work. And leave her be in her own world. Which is all fine and shiny, imo.

„And 20% feral men would still translate into literally millions of violent dudes having nothing to lose, banding together into packs and engaging in crime etc.”

That sounds plausible, although I’m skeptical about the social crisis reaching Mad Max proportions anytime in the near future. Of course,it doesn’t actually need to reach such proportions for massive repercussions to take place.

„But a minority, I fear, will turn rabid here as well. Which in turn might create a vicious circle with “rape culture” finally actually becoming reality and feminists responding with “Seeeee! We told you so!”.”

The feminists talking about ’rape culture’ don’t know shit about rape I’m afraid. Only a small minority of men have been rapists in any era and society anyway, and most of them are either psychopaths or suffered severe psychological damage. The Red Army in 1945 had a rape culture; the current USA sure as Hell doesn’t have one. The mentality that enables rape in the first place is a deeply patriarchal one, treating women as property and war booty, and this mentality is in very short supply in the West nowadays.

„We are like the Red Army.”

No. Men never unite to address gender-based grievances. There have been tons of discussions about this in the Manosphere. We can complain about it all day, but it is what it is. I, for one, think that men’s refusal to adopt the mentality of the gender war is proof of their inherent sence of justice and morality, which is a good thing.

„I have thought about this some and personally would be okayish with a ‘Status Quo Ante‘ peace.”

I doubt there ever will be a return to Marriage 1.0. The economic basis for it has simply vanished. Athol had an excellent post about this some time ago.

“The feminists talking about ’rape culture’ don’t know shit about rape I’m afraid. Only a small minority of men have been rapists in any era and society anyway, and most of them are either psychopaths or suffered severe psychological damage. The Red Army in 1945 had a rape culture; the current USA sure as Hell doesn’t have one. The mentality that enables rape in the first place is a deeply patriarchal one, treating women as property and war booty, and this mentality is in very short supply in the West nowadays.”

While I agree with you that only a small minority of men engage in rape at present I’m not altogether convinced this remains the same in *all* circumstances. Certainly, unstable psychopaths are more prone to raping than men with a good sense of equilibrium. On the other hand…I ask myself…whence comes rape? The feminists claim it’s about power. To me this sounds pretty absurd. A lot of animals rape as well, after all. Rape – to me – seems like an adaptive response of lower value mates (i.e. those animals/men having lost the fight against the Alphas).

So if we view rape as a sexual act and not one that is driven primarily by lust for power…the sexual starvation of millions of western men, itself, might lead to an increase of rape occurrence. Consider, moreover, that rape is presently an *extremely* penalized crime. Rapists are seen as the lowest of the low. So there is a strong deterrence against raping.

At the same time with the everincreasing torrent of false rape claims (as well as demonization of men) I fear…that this deterrence might be reduced. Some of the more unstable, angry men might say to themselves “what is there to lose? If we’re going to prison anyway…might as well give them a real reason.”

I’m not in any way sure about this. I’m just speculating, exploring. But it seems plausible to me that feminist societies might just now be creating a generation of monsters.

Combine 1.) sexual deprivation of men, 2.) social marginalization, 3.) cultural demonization, 4.) systemic legal injustice (false rape) and finally 5.) a sudden collapse in law and order (due to economic/societal breakdown)…and you come to a pretty unpleasant picture.

Oh and I don’t think patriarchal cultures enable rape. I believe rape is *far* more widespread in matriarchal cultures (due to polygyny and thus increased male mate competition and a corresponding sexual polarization with a few winners (Alphas) and many losers (Betas, Omegas)). Imo, monogamous patriarchal cultures actually *reduce* the probability of rape as almost nobody ends up alone, angry and desperate.

“No. Men never unite to address gender-based grievances. There have been tons of discussions about this in the Manosphere. We can complain about it all day, but it is what it is. I, for one, think that men’s refusal to adopt the mentality of the gender war is proof of their inherent sence of justice and morality, which is a good thing.”

Hmmm. I cannot say for certain. But looking at history it does strike me that men have risen time and again…in situations where they felt unjustly treated. It is hereby debatable, of course, what role women played in the formation of their consciousness. But consciousness itself seems to be the magic ingredient. Give things some more time. Personally, I have the feeling male consciousness about these issues is increasing, and fast. In the last 2 years alone…I’ve noticed a substantial change vis a vis males. Read comments on gender articles…even in the lame stream media. Imo, the percentage of manginas is falling and more and more men are at least starting to suspect there is a problem here, making them openminded to the likes of the MRA.

Oh and for the record: personally, I don’t want vengeance so much as a solution to this festering problem. Justice and morality is what I strive for as well. Only I believe we cannot have that without a robust partiarchy including a uncorrupted church enforcing societal mores and regulating / civilizing sexuality.

“This is partly because of biology (i.e. the female brain is more affected by emotions than the male brain and less able to separate emotional and rational discourse) but mostly because they are, quite literally, the weaker sex. They are only seldomly able to deal effectively with flak.”

Where is the evidence that women are less able to sort emotional discourse from rational discourse? Is this conjecture or science? I suspect it is simply bullshit.

Everybody gets irrational. This blog post probably an example. You fail to consider other perspectives and insist that you must have the most logical PoV. I am guessing that you are too stupid to realize that, though.

Your comments have been both eloquent and asolutely excellent with regards to giving concrete examples for this article. Also, your timing was impeccable, I couldn’t have asked for more. You go girl!

Now, imagine a feeling of soothing relaxation. Feel how your anxiety just slips away and you lay back and lose yourself in pristine bliss. A calm tranquility overcomes you like a velvet blanket of comfort. All the stress, all the anger, all the pain is gone. You’ve transcended them. Imagine in their stead….harmony, happiness, serenity.

Now. What was that about misogyny? In what way? Are you able, do you feel….like you can distance yourself from emotions for a while? And just focus on facts and hereby especially on concrete examples?

As for the larger issue, various forms of Game are probably the best way to deal with women in “debates”. The problem with this is women in positions of authority, which can easily become a no-win situation.

My own preferences have led me to areas of endeavor where facts rule. The minority of women who are able to function in those areas (20% or so) by and large are capable of some degree of reason. Postmenopausal they can be down right logical.

Of course, this means that most of the liberal arts and humanities are effectively off limits to men…

“As for the larger issue, various forms of Game are probably the best way to deal with women in “debates”. The problem with this is women in positions of authority, which can easily become a no-win situation.”

Amen, bro. I feel exactly the same way. I can deal with women in private settings rather easily…via the fundamentals of ‘game’. But what really gets to me is when I have to collaborate with them professionally. Unfortunately for me, I’m not a technical guy. I suck at mathematics and all that. Thus…I’ve primarily been in jobs where there were a lot of women, and, of course, female bosses as well.

It has been difficult arena to survive in. A snakepit of sorts. The thing is: a female boss oftentimes won’t give you clearcut, unambiguous orders. She won’t explain to you what she means or how she wants things to get done. Instead, she’ll expect you to read between the lines….or read or thoughts or some such. She’ll expect you to get things right regardless of her communication (or lack thereoff).

Additionally, ime, under pressure things often become scarily irrational. When the SHTF it gets ugly without end. If you try to help her by explaining what’s going on and offering solutions…chances are high that the exact dynamic explained in this here article kicks in: she’ll respond emotionally to the subcommunicated criticism of her management abilities instead of pondering the merits of the actual message.

So you, as the harbinger of evil tidings, get shafted (“not a teamplayer”, “difficult” etc.), the job doesn’t get done and overall efficiency suffers.

Heh. Imo, this dynamic is not really all that astonishing, nor is it surprising. It just is. Only it’s not allowed to be voiced publicly because it flies in the face of the holy commandments of feminism and grrrrl power.

Sometimes adopting positive female modes such as “tend and befriend” can defuse a situation. But unfortunately, in a crisis situation such as a looming deadline plus incomplete work, there’s no time to “tend and befriend” for very long. Variations on tend and befriend, such as flattery, have the same problem. On option might be to work on tend and befriend for an extended period of time in a non-crisis situation in order to become the Queen Bee’s right hand, and then use that social authority in a crisis to solve the problems quickly. A high price to pay, really, but it would work.

The problem is, at the root, women in authority. For the vast majority of women might be able to function in authority during normal conditions, but they’ll fall apart in a crisis. Which just happens to be the time when a leader needs to function the best…

And it all ties back to evolutionary biology – it’s in the hindbrain, not in the frontal lobes. The root premise of feminism – that men and women are exactly the same, except women can have babies – is false. Any social, political, legal notions that are based on that premise cannot work, because it is axiomatic that false premise -> no useful conclusion.

“Additionally, ime, under pressure things often become scarily irrational. When the SHTF it gets ugly without end. If you try to help her by explaining what’s going on and offering solutions…chances are high that the exact dynamic explained in this here article kicks in: she’ll respond emotionally to the subcommunicated criticism of her management abilities instead of pondering the merits of the actual message.”

Ran into exactly this in the last show I designed. The director was a woman and decided to try and change the plans at 2 AM after I had already pulled an all nighter the night before. I convinced her otherwise and, big surprise, when she came in the next day she hated the day of work I had done.

I had re-assured her that we could pursue another route the night before, but obviously THAT route wasn’t good for her either. Instead, she wanted to go with a third, undiscussed option. When I tell her that this is fine, but would put the show over budget she attacked my design, my work ethic, and told me I was now threatening her with going over budget – despite that her plans had put us behind on labor, over on money, and required me to go two nights without sleep.

From what I can tell the primary controversy you cite UMSlOPOGAAS began with Susan Walsh merely asking a question. Is that a crime for a woman now? Simply asking a question? I haven’t looked into this I am just going by what you posted above as evidence of female irrationality.

Anyway, even if Susan Walsh reacted in an emotional way you cannot infer from that that women cannot be as logical as a man. Anecdotes do not equal evidence.

It is absolutely appalling to me the level of hubis you men display. I have had to deal with irrational men. I don’t infer from those minor incidents that men cannot be logical.

I bet this simple will lost on all of you though. The male ego rears it’s ugly head again. Nothing a woman says is valid anymore, not because women are illogical but because men do not understand debate and are absolutely convinced of their superiority.

“Is that a crime for a woman now?”
“The male ego rears it’s ugly head again.”
“Nothing a woman says is valid anymore”
“not because women are illogical but because men do not understand debate”

So you´re arguing against the idea that women are irrational and emotional, by engaging in an irrational and emotional attack. Clever? nope. If you are against the argument, then bring something that destroys the argument, like, another argument. Disgust isnt an argument, so you´re not cutting it.

If you want me to cut out the ad hominems I will. Then will you look take me seriously, or will just assert your superiority? As for being disgusted, I can have an emotion, that does not prevent me from debating well.

In short, you´re only proving UMSLO´s point for him. And the point is that when it comes to debate women do it emotionally and not rationally. If you want to prove that’s not the case, then do something different.

Actually, what I wrote wasn’t ad hominem. It was an insult. I can compose a valid argument and use insults. An insult is only an ad hominem if it is used in place of an argument. It is really a flaw in my discourse, unless you are sensitive. I don’t why an “alpha” would be.

Using insults along with argument does not invalidate the argument the insult appeared next to. I can barely comprehend the shallowness of that kind of thinking. It is only a fallacy if i use insults in place of argument. I never said I was making an argument when I explained that, you should have read more carefully. Initially, I was only asking for good evidence. I am still asking.

How about you engage me? We live in a scientific era. Conjecture about the nature the world we live just isn’t good enough anymore. It is all too easy to fall prey to cognitive biases. Men have them too.

Looking over what I have written here it is funny to point out that I composed a number arguments despite what Yohami wrote above. If you challenge me on this I will happily go over them.

It is also funny when bullies whine about insults. I could easily pick out dozens of insults against women just skimming through the blog post and the comments. Can you take what you give? If I were a man would you begrudge me my insults? I am happy to have a civil debate if you guys can be civil as well. Otherwise, you have no right to complain about bad discourse.

I could easily pick out dozens of insults against women just skimming through the blog post and the comments.

There is a difference between an insult leveraged at a particular person intermixed in a debate (“You are stupid, so you can’t comprehend that 1+1=2″ would be an example) versus a criticism made at a group. Generally, it’s OK to criticize men as a group without being a man-hater (“men only want one thing!”, which is overstated, but true enough – we really do want sex) but no such criticisms can be made of women without being misogynist.

The former technically a fact, but the argument is weakened by the direct insult. The latter is an observation which may not be true in all cases but might be true enough to be useful.

General statements made about women are fair if true. General statements made about men are fair if true. We all know that.

It is true that women tend to have more sharply emotional experience than men, that can be proven, however, that does not mean women deserve to be condescended to. It is a slippery slope believing that you alone as a male are capable of rationality and women should just listen. The pitfall is extreme arrogance, a major stumbling block to real self-awareness.

Quite easily Yohami. The fact that women tend to have more intense emotional experiences does not mean women cannot sort rational discourse from emotional discourse. Besides this point, I think it is worth pointing out that in a relationship disagreements are usually over value judgment. Men may consider their value judgments more ‘logical’ but it is not always necessary to employ logic as such, sometimes comprise is for the best.

The fact that you have this blog to go on and on about women proves that men are bitter and over-emotional. How easy bitter & emotional men like you forget that it is men who fill prisons and are murderers, serial killers, rapists, child molesters, etc. Men are more emotionl than women we just don’t use words like emotional to describe the irrational and even psychotic behavior of men/boys as emotional. It is quite obvious that men are not only overly emotional but try to hide “non-male” emotions only to completely lose control. Men think everything they do is right and therefore rational. I think it’s truly pathetic that you feel a society that hates women is giving too much to them.

Magnificent beat ! I would like to apprentice at the same time
as you amend your web site, how could i subscribe for a weblog site?
The account aided me a acceptable deal. I have been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered shiny clear idea